Article 2183 - The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible for the damage, which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.

Article 2197 – Damages may be: 1. Actual or compensatory;2. Moral;3. Nominal;4. Temperate;5. Liquidated; or6. Exemplary or corrective

Article 2216 – No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of each case.

FOR PROSECUTION

According to Manresa the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause. (Vestil vs. IAC, 179 SCRA 48)

The rule generally is that there is no liability where a wrongful act of the injured person contributed to the injury. Even where warning signs are posted on the place, the owner of the known bad dog is not to be exempted from liability to one who is rightfully on the premises. (Burke vs. Fischer, 298 Ky. 157)

The gist of an action for damages by a vicious dog, whose propensities are known, is not negligence in the manner of keeping the dog; it is keeping the dog at all; and, the action is founded upon the theory of maintenance of a nuisance, not negligence. (Jaco v. Baker, 174 Or 191, 148 P2d 938)

The word “damage” in these articles comprehends all that are embraced in its meaning. It includes any and damages that a human being may suffer in any and all

the manifestations of his life: physical or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial, economic, social, political, religious. (Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., 82 Phil 360)

FOR DEFENSE

A person who unnecessarily or without cause or excuse knowingly places himself within the reach of a wild animal securely fastened which he knows to be dangerous, he cannot recover for the injury resulting from an attack by such animal. A plaintiff may also deprive himself of a right to complain, if notwithstanding warnings given to him and without the knowledge of the keeper, he exposes himself to be attacked. (57 Am Jur. 2d pp. 326-27, 329)

Moral Damages may not be awarded if there is no legal basis therof, nor may it be imposed in substitution of civil indemnity. (People vs. Maramara, 317 SCRA 222)